3 ms·

Science cannot and will never be able to demonstrate how homeopathy does not work, only that it works about as well as a placebo. So we are left with stories li

by denom 13y ago

Science cannot and will never be able to demonstrate how homeopathy does not work, only that it works about as well as a placebo. So we are left with stories like this, which basically states that these two unknown things (placebos and homeopathy) are scientifically indistinguishable. That much is painfully clear. Is there anything that this article brings to the debate that is new/original?

sillysaurus3 13y ago
Being indistinguishable from a placebo is equivalent to "as powerful as your mind," though. Which is to say, if your mind can't cure cancer, then neither can homeopathy. Isn't that pretty close to demonstrating it doesn't work?
- denom 13y ago
  maybe, but I think you are assuming that we can, scientifically or otherwise, distinguish (categorize) everything that is real. I'm inclined to believe that this is not possible. In that case indistinguishability becomes equivalent to saying nothing at all in scientific terms. The arguments in these kinds of articles have no choice but to become very tedious, mainly focusing on how people are getting ripped off, they cannot determine why homeopathic cures operate the same way as placebos--or not, which is the crux of the homeopathic argument.
  - letstryagain 13y ago
    > I'm inclined to believe that this is not possible. That's the most ignorant thing I've read all day.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - denom 13y ago
      Wow, I didn't realize that I would get downvoted here. Let's see if I can explain myself. Consider a few examples of things that science cannot distinguish: * The speed and position of an electron cloud ensemble. * The moment a radioactive particle will decay Anyways, my point was that homeopathy stories like the one we are talking about revolve around this formula: 1) peer reviewed studies show that homeopathy works as a placebo 2) ordinary people don't understand science 3) people are getting ripped off! For me the interesting stuff is in #1. The debate over homeopathy is epistemological, over how we can know things. I have not seen any scientific research on how homeopathic works, or does not work, in the same way as a placebo. Anything less than this and the "rational" argument becomes "just don't take it because it's a placebo". Which is not a reason to cease taking homeopathic products, because doctors _prescribe_ placebos, and I have never seen an article like this that attacks doctors who prescribe placebos. http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20081023/50percent-of-doctors-give-fake-prescriptions http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20081023/50percent...
      - maxerickson 13y ago
        A doctor believing he has no legitimate treatment for a specific condition choosing to lead the patient to believe they are being treated is easy to distinguish from a fraud marketing magic water. The doctor is unlikely to choose the placebo over a legitimate treatment. The fraud doesn't care if there is a legitimate treatment.
      - isleyaardvark 13y ago
        #1 isn't interesting because placebos don't work. By definition. "[A] simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment, per Wikipedia. If a trial of a medicine works as well as a placebo, that means it does not work.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        Placebos do "work", after a fashion, which is part of why they are used as a control rather than nothing being given to the control group (helping to assure blinding of participants, both subjects and experimenters, is also a factor.) In fact, different mechanisms of placebo delivery "work" to different degrees (in many cases, injection-based placebos "work" better than ingestion-based.)
ps4fanboy 13y ago
You could make this argument about anything, how about this a new medical treatment that cures everything, what you do is bang your head against a wall every day. It wont be more effective than a placebo, but some people will get better.

by denom 13y ago

sillysaurus3 13y ago

Being indistinguishable from a placebo is equivalent to "as powerful as your mind," though. Which is to say, if your mind can't cure cancer, then neither can homeopathy. Isn't that pretty close to demonstrating it doesn't work?

denom 13y ago
maybe, but I think you are assuming that we can, scientifically or otherwise, distinguish (categorize) everything that is real. I'm inclined to believe that this is not possible. In that case indistinguishability becomes equivalent to saying nothing at all in scientific terms. The arguments in these kinds of articles have no choice but to become very tedious, mainly focusing on how people are getting ripped off, they cannot determine why homeopathic cures operate the same way as placebos--or not, which is the crux of the homeopathic argument.
- letstryagain 13y ago
  > I'm inclined to believe that this is not possible. That's the most ignorant thing I've read all day.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - denom 13y ago
    Wow, I didn't realize that I would get downvoted here. Let's see if I can explain myself. Consider a few examples of things that science cannot distinguish: * The speed and position of an electron cloud ensemble. * The moment a radioactive particle will decay Anyways, my point was that homeopathy stories like the one we are talking about revolve around this formula: 1) peer reviewed studies show that homeopathy works as a placebo 2) ordinary people don't understand science 3) people are getting ripped off! For me the interesting stuff is in #1. The debate over homeopathy is epistemological, over how we can know things. I have not seen any scientific research on how homeopathic works, or does not work, in the same way as a placebo. Anything less than this and the "rational" argument becomes "just don't take it because it's a placebo". Which is not a reason to cease taking homeopathic products, because doctors _prescribe_ placebos, and I have never seen an article like this that attacks doctors who prescribe placebos. http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20081023/50percent-of-doctors-give-fake-prescriptions http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20081023/50percent...
    - maxerickson 13y ago
      A doctor believing he has no legitimate treatment for a specific condition choosing to lead the patient to believe they are being treated is easy to distinguish from a fraud marketing magic water. The doctor is unlikely to choose the placebo over a legitimate treatment. The fraud doesn't care if there is a legitimate treatment.
    - isleyaardvark 13y ago
      #1 isn't interesting because placebos don't work. By definition. "[A] simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment, per Wikipedia. If a trial of a medicine works as well as a placebo, that means it does not work.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        Placebos do "work", after a fashion, which is part of why they are used as a control rather than nothing being given to the control group (helping to assure blinding of participants, both subjects and experimenters, is also a factor.) In fact, different mechanisms of placebo delivery "work" to different degrees (in many cases, injection-based placebos "work" better than ingestion-based.)

ps4fanboy 13y ago

You could make this argument about anything, how about this a new medical treatment that cures everything, what you do is bang your head against a wall every day. It wont be more effective than a placebo, but some people will get better.